ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 26, 2020, 11:07:07 AM

Title: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 26, 2020, 11:07:07 AM
A comment I just responded to that caused me to chuckle due to its hypocrisy along with the notion that this forum isn't very welcoming to women led me to start a thread on how conservative women are treated by those with differing views.

We're already seeing how this will play out with the anticipated announcement of the female Supreme Court nominee pick later this afternoon.  The woman thought to be the SCOTUS pick has endured attacks on her faith, including being called a "f@#*n nut (https://www.youtube.com/embed/oevs6rjfx7c)" for her religion, along with being on the receiving end of other atrocious discourse.

Rather than celebrating a highly-credentialed female professional working mother of seven children (2 adopted from Haiti and 1 with special needs), those with differing political leanings villianize her instead.  That's a great display of support for women that they purport to advance, right?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 11:20:29 AM
Personally, I have no objection to the nominee, even though I might’ve wished it was somebody else. She is relatively inexperienced, but…
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: GalRevRedux on September 26, 2020, 11:23:21 AM
Apparently, based on what I read this morning, the initial media plan of attack involves questioning the propriety of the adoption process of Judge Barrett’s children (from Haiti). I find this abhorrent.

To be honest, I had been hoping that, as she was subjected to horrid hearings just 2 years ago, the hearings might be skipped this time. Such hearings are not legally mandated.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Jim Butler on September 26, 2020, 11:27:11 AM
A comment I just responded to that caused me to chuckle due to its hypocrisy along with the notion that this forum isn't very welcoming to women led me to start a thread on how conservative women are treated by those with differing views.

We're already seeing how this will play out with the anticipated announcement of the female Supreme Court nominee pick later this afternoon.  The woman thought to be the SCOTUS pick has endured attacks on her faith, including being called a "f@#*n nut (https://www.youtube.com/embed/oevs6rjfx7c)" for her religion, along with being on the receiving end of other atrocious discourse.

Rather than celebrating a highly-credentialed female professional working mother of seven children (2 adopted from Haiti and 1 with special needs), those with differing political leanings villianize her instead.  That's a great display of support for women that they purport to advance, right?

I was thinking about this the other day. The attacks on ACB remind me of those on Daniel: they only thing they have is her religion. They cannot attack her credentials. Students, judges, and other lawyers have all said she is one of the most brilliant women they have ever met. She is compassionate and caring; stories of her helping students abound. What else is left?

That she is part of a group called "People of Praise." Which, supposedly, degenerates women. If that is true, then they obviously do a very bad job of it: she graduated at the top of her law class, clerked for Silberman (DC Circuit) and Scalia (SCOTUS), and then served as law professor at Notre Dame, and then judge on the 7th Circuit.

Let's be honest: if she was a Catholic in the mold of Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, she would be a feminist icon. As it is, she must be destroyed.

Sad. Truly sad.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 11:33:04 AM
Apparently, based on what I read this morning, the initial media plan of attack involves questioning the propriety of the adoption process of Judge Barrett’s children (from Haiti). I find this abhorrent.

To be honest, I had been hoping that, as she was subjected to horrid hearings just 2 years ago, the hearings might be skipped this time. Such hearings are not legally mandated.

Agree completely. Not only for her sake personally, but the sake of her entire family. No one should have to go through that level of abuse.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 11:36:43 AM
Any of us who aspires to any position, whether it is pastor of a parish, or a position on the Supreme Court, must be willing to go through the process required to obtain that position. The process may be fair; it may be unfair. But you have to go through it before you get to where you want to be. By the way, is it a little bit sexist to suggest that because she’s a woman and a mother she shouldn’t have to go through what some consider the “Horror“ of hearings?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2020, 11:37:58 AM
For some people, women are only women sociologically. It is something to be used for intersectionality purposes against the power structure. Conservative women aren't really women the same way black Trump supporters aren't really black. It is an ideology, not a biological reality.

Interracial adoption does indeed carry with it certain added problems, nearly all of them explained by the fact that everyone can see clearly that the children are not the biological children of the parents, and that includes the children themselves. But it is not an insurmountable problem; I know a lot of people who have done interracial adoptions, some with very little issue and some where it became a problem.

A big divide on this issue is people who see adoption as a lifestyle choice for themselves and healthy, adoptable children as a public commodity vs. people who believe strongly in the benefits of growing up in a stable traditional family and want to share that gift with those in need.

A light-hearted but still serious movie that includes this issue is Instant Family, which is recommended to augment training by the fostering service we use.  It involves a white couple adopting Hispanic children through the foster system.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 26, 2020, 11:40:35 AM
Any of us who aspires to any position, whether it is pastor of a parish, or a position on the Supreme Court, must be willing to go through the process required to obtain that position. The process may be fair; it may be unfair. But you have to go through it before you get to where you want to be. By the way, is it a little bit sexist to suggest that because she’s a woman and a mother she shouldn’t have to go through what some consider the “Horror“ of hearings?

If I understood one of the posters correctly, I thought the idea was that she just went through this a mere two years ago, and it would probably be a repeat of the same attacks and such.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 11:44:35 AM
Any of us who aspires to any position, whether it is pastor of a parish, or a position on the Supreme Court, must be willing to go through the process required to obtain that position. The process may be fair; it may be unfair. But you have to go through it before you get to where you want to be. By the way, is it a little bit sexist to suggest that because she’s a woman and a mother she shouldn’t have to go through what some consider the “Horror“ of hearings?

Well, that didn't take long, giving evidence why women don't post here ...
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Randy Bosch on September 26, 2020, 11:53:05 AM
Any of us who aspires to any position, whether it is pastor of a parish, or a position on the Supreme Court, must be willing to go through the process required to obtain that position. The process may be fair; it may be unfair. But you have to go through it before you get to where you want to be. By the way, is it a little bit sexist to suggest that because she’s a woman and a mother she shouldn’t have to go through what some consider the “Horror“ of hearings?

The process may be fair or unfair.  This process is not inherently like running the gauntlet or fraternity initiation hazing.  What brings "horror" to hearings isn't the process, it is the individual participants who act in an unfair manner.  Many - actually almost all - have endured the process without having horrendous personal attacks thrown at them by political enemies.  One of the Senators who sits on the applicable committee has announced that the urban civil unrest is necessary to achieve change, and also happens to be one who was horrendously unfair in conduct in previous similar hearings since achieving election to the Senate.

Your "everybody has to go through it" meme is an attempt at self-justification for such behavior, an attempt to wash your hands of it.
What happened to your doctrine that "see, everybody does it; see, it has happened before" is not acceptable?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 11:59:11 AM
I did not, Randy Bosch, endorse what people say or do in the process. That is a different problem.
But as all of us know who have gone through various kinds of questioning or public additions, it’s just part of the deal. Even in a meeting with a congregation council considering whether to call you, you know that some center-of-the-rump jerk is going to ask stupid and inappropriate questions.”
Not saying, am I, that those things are appropriate; just that we know they will happen.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James S. Rustad on September 26, 2020, 12:24:27 PM
Personally, I have no objection to the nominee, even though I might’ve wished it was somebody else. She is relatively inexperienced, but…

Nice post.  It works for you no matter who Trump nominates.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Randy Bosch on September 26, 2020, 12:29:59 PM
I did not, Randy Bosch, endorse what people say or do in the process. That is a different problem.
But as all of us know who have gone through various kinds of questioning or public additions, it’s just part of the deal. Even in a meeting with a congregation council considering whether to call you, you know that some center-of-the-rump jerk is going to ask stupid and inappropriate questions.”
Not saying, am I, that those things are appropriate; just that we know they will happen.

Thank you for the affirmation.  Edmund Burke saw the dichotomy as the price of justice and liberty.
"Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together.  That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points (that are) the most essential to him.  That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it."

Perhaps we all might be careful about the reality of  "...just that we know they will happen", which appears to bump into the fallacy of "general will".  "Rousseau invented the idea of 'general will', to which we all supposedly give free assent even when we are being brought to the guillotine.  But of course the 'general will' is a pious fiction of autocrats." (Alan Jacobs)
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 26, 2020, 12:34:13 PM
I did not, Randy Bosch, endorse what people say or do in the process. That is a different problem.
But as all of us know who have gone through various kinds of questioning or public additions, it’s just part of the deal. Even in a meeting with a congregation council considering whether to call you, you know that some center-of-the-rump jerk is going to ask stupid and inappropriate questions.”
Not saying, am I, that those things are appropriate; just that we know they will happen.
An opportunity was missed to clearly condemn the type conduct that the Buckeye Deaconess opened this thread with. Rather than address the expected behavior of the confirmation process, comments have been redirected toward relatively tame and hopefully Christian setting of congregational meetings.

Our Lord says either you or for me or you were against me. In this case the question is will this expected rude and crude conduct that has become standard and confirmation hearings (and eluded to in the opening post of this thread) be condemned or will it simply be explained away ...Therefore tacitly approving it by silence?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 12:37:17 PM
Personally, I have no objection to the nominee, even though I might’ve wished it was somebody else. She is relatively inexperienced, but…
ACB has clerk's for an appeals court judge and Supreme Court Justice, been a law professor, and sat on the 7th Court of Appeals for two years a rs how much more experience should be required?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: GalRevRedux on September 26, 2020, 12:38:55 PM
I did not, Randy Bosch, endorse what people say or do in the process. That is a different problem.
But as all of us know who have gone through various kinds of questioning or public additions, it’s just part of the deal. Even in a meeting with a congregation council considering whether to call you, you know that some center-of-the-rump jerk is going to ask stupid and inappropriate questions.”
Not saying, am I, that those things are appropriate; just that we know they will happen.

But they don't have to happen. There is no constitutional mandate for these circus hearings which, in a kinder, more civilized era, used to be affirming and positive for all involved.

Do not discount how ugly this can become. I will link an article you all  might be tempted to disregard, but take a look at the primary source material contained within (That is to say, tweet content and such).

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/25/https-www-breitbart-com-politics-2020-09-25-donald-trump-russia-interfered-in-2016-election-on-behalf-of-hillary-clinton/ (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/25/https-www-breitbart-com-politics-2020-09-25-donald-trump-russia-interfered-in-2016-election-on-behalf-of-hillary-clinton/)
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 01:10:03 PM
I believe the person and content of that incident have been repudiated. But I may be wrong.
OTOH, what is the list of things to be declared "off limits" when analyzing the decisions and life of a federal judge?
Candidates have been dumped because they had housekeepers who were undocumented. But there seems to be no consistency. Rush Limbaugh was given a pass when it was learned he was using his housekeep as a source for opiods.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Keith Falk on September 26, 2020, 01:19:57 PM
I believe the person and content of that incident have been repudiated. But I may be wrong.
OTOH, what is the list of things to be declared "off limits" when analyzing the decisions and life of a federal judge?
Candidates have been dumped because they had housekeepers who were undocumented. But there seems to be no consistency. Rush Limbaugh was given a pass when it was learned he was using his housekeep as a source for opiods.


Rush Limbaugh was not seeking public office or being appointed to a position in government.  Comparing him to a SCOTUS nominee is like comparing apples and ballet.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Randy Bosch on September 26, 2020, 01:21:31 PM
I believe the person and content of that incident have been repudiated. But I may be wrong.
OTOH, what is the list of things to be declared "off limits" when analyzing the decisions and life of a federal judge?
Candidates have been dumped because they had housekeepers who were undocumented. But there seems to be no consistency. Rush Limbaugh was given a pass when it was learned he was using his housekeep as a source for opiods. 

1. Rush Limbaugh has never been nominated for the Federal Judiciary.  2.  You don't know that he was given a pass, only that whatever you heard about the results of the incident didn't meet your criterion for justice.  2.  Limbaugh is a public figure who often triggers emotional responses across the political spectrum. 

You are once again engaging in a form of "gaslighting" that is perhaps better understood as what C. S. Lewis defined to be "Bulverism".  (Paraphrased by Alan Jacobs),

"The charge of 'gaslighting' is an extreme form of 'Bulverism': Instead of claiming 'you say that because you are a man' or 'you say that because you're an American', it's 'you say that because you are a moral monster'.

"It's a useful tactic to deploy if you'd prefer never to think about whether any of your assumptions are correct.  Your opponents are not only wrong, theyare wicked, and why should you engage with arguments that are obviously made in bad faith and for evil purposes? 

"These convictions keep your echo chamber hermentically sealed."

Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Randy Bosch on September 26, 2020, 01:31:33 PM
I believe the person and content of that incident have been repudiated. But I may be wrong.  [...]

Where did you learn, o journalist humble, to justify hearsay by averring that you may be wrong to protect yourself?  Was it from the rumor spreaders who claim they were told something scurrilous about another person, then close with the "but I don't really know" disclaimer? 

Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 01:34:58 PM
I don’t have any real “opponents” here. And I’m nor sure I would call anyone here “wicked.”
Forget I ever mentioned Limbaugh, for my attempt to use him as a “public person who...” obviously did not work.
P.S. (again) Nothing I write in this modest forum is ever intended to be journalism. Why would I work that hard for this small readership?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 01:45:39 PM
I don’t have any real “opponents” here. And I’m nor sure I would call anyone here “wicked.”
Forget I ever mentioned Limbaugh, for my attempt to use him as a “public person who...” obviously did not work.
P.S. (again) Nothing I write in this modest forum is ever intended to be journalism. Why would I work that hard for this small readership?
Does that mean that we should not take anything that you post here seriously because you do not? You obvious don't care enough to proofread or get names or attributions correct. Just shooting the breeze.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 01:48:57 PM

Candidates have been dumped because they had housekeepers who were undocumented. But there seems to be no consistency. Rush Limbaugh was given a pass when it was learned he was using his housekeep as a source for opiods.

Just two years ago the senior senator from California dumped on her because she is a practicing Roman Catholic. That was wrong then and will be wrong again when it comes up during her confirmation hearing.

Rush was audited every year for 12 years straight until he moved out of New York. Harassment comes in many forms or did you forget Obama weaponized the IRS against conservatives during his time in office? And Rush is not a federal employee, but a private citizen.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: David Garner on September 26, 2020, 01:52:14 PM
I wonder if the Democrats are paying close attention to the last time they made this mistake and the lessons learned.  They went after Kavanaugh with a vengeance.  There is widespread belief it cost them a chance to re-take the Senate, which would have essentially negated the present Supreme Court nomination by the way.  Why?  It empowered and offended conservatives, especially conservative women (my wife has yet to forget their vile treatment of him), and it turned off independents.

This seems worse.  Barrett is a Catholic.  At a time when the Democratic nominee for president is trying to tout his Catholicism as a feature, Democrats are trying to simultaneously argue that Barrett's is a bug (mostly because hers appears to be in line with what the Catholic Church actually teaches).  Worse, they are making up stories about her, such as the aforementioned People of Praise connection, which was initially reported as being the impetus for A Handmaid's Tale, but then quietly redacted when it turned out that was grade A horse squeeze.  They are attacking her for having too many children, and for adopting children from Haiti.  Which is ironic on two fronts, the first being the old and stupid canard that pro life people should go out and adopt more if they really believe what they preach, and the second being that apparently adopting black kids from overseas is noble when Madonna does it but virtue signaling and cultural appropriation when a conservative woman does it.  So Catholic Democrats and independents are going to get to watch their party, including their VP nominee, trash a woman for ............... being Catholic and living like she takes it seriously..

Democrats are fond of pointing to 2018 and blaming Republican losses in the House on Kavanaugh's ultimate confirmation.  That ignores that the Senate is far more akin to the electoral college in how it is constituted and how votes state-by-state are doled out than the House is.  And the Republicans gained seats in the Senate after the Kavanaugh debacle.  If Trump wins, particularly if he wins those rust belt states again, look back to this moment, when the Democrats could have made a valid process argument and chose instead to trash a Catholic woman for taking her faith seriously.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 01:56:54 PM

Well said David.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Jim Butler on September 26, 2020, 02:13:56 PM
P.S. (again) Nothing I write in this modest forum is ever intended to be journalism. Why would I work that hard for this small readership?

Then why consistently refer to yourself as a "humble correspondent" on this forum?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 02:27:17 PM
jebutler:
then why consistently refer to yourself as a "humble correspondent" on this forum?

Me:
Heaven's, what is this? Second grade?
The first Merriam-Webster definition of correspondent is: "one who communicates with another by letter." Yes, the word has other uses. I'm stretching "letter" to cover online posting. Is that OK?
Then there is common-sense and contextual understanding of a phrase I wryly use in my posting because everyone knows that - at times - I am not self-consciously "humble." Finally, the term "your humble correspondent," is intended to evoke a Victorian politesse and gentility which is rarely present here. Hence irony.
Now who wants to tell me what the White Whale really means to Captain Ahab and why the narrator of the book is named Ishmael?
Sorry: Once an English Major, Always an English Major. Card-carrying member of P.O.E.M, the Professional Organization of English Majors, formed years ago by Garrison Keillor.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 02:32:59 PM
jebutler:
then why consistently refer to yourself as a "humble correspondent" on this forum?

Me:
Heaven's, what is this? Second grade?
The first Merriam-Webster definition of correspondent is: "one who communicates with another by letter." Yes, the word has other uses. I'm stretching "letter" to cover online posting. Is that OK?
Then there is common-sense and contextual understanding of a phrase I wryly use in my posting because everyone knows that - at times - I am not self-consciously "humble." Finally, the term "your humble correspondent," is intended to evoke a Victorian politesse and gentility which is rarely present here. Hence irony.
Now who wants to tell me what the White Whale really means to Captain Ahab and why the narrator of the book is named Ishmael?
Sorry: Once an English Major, Always an English Major. Card-carrying member of P.O.E.M, the Professional Organization of English Majors, formed years ago by Garrison Keillor.
Judging by your frequent forays into condescension and scorn your idea of Victorian politeness and gentility differs from mine.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 02:38:03 PM
Sigh! Got to do it again.
“Evoke” means to recall, it does not mean to bring about or to be. And you need a comma after “scorn.” 😈
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 02:46:40 PM
Sigh! Got to do it again.
“Evoke” means to recall, it does not mean to bring about or to be. And you need a comma after “scorn.” 😈

You mentioned this is a small audience. It expended and improved during your lifetime ban. No one else here can claim a similar impact.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2020, 03:03:41 PM
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/26/bill-maher-demonizes-amy-coney-barrett-for-her-faith-shes-really-really-catholic-n972424

This article is good once you get past the usual stupidity from Maher and read about her exchange with a questioner on this topic at a speech she gave a year or two ago.

The gist is that religious people are always asked about separating their religious convictions from their rulings, which requires an originalist/textualist assumption. In reality, everyone, religious or otherwise, has strong personal, moral convictions that aren't part of the text of the law they're looking at. Irreligious people should be asked the same question just as often-- can you separate your personal convictions from your rulings? The idea that they're even separable in theory implies the need for textualist interpreters.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Jim Butler on September 26, 2020, 03:05:15 PM
jebutler:
then why consistently refer to yourself as a "humble correspondent" on this forum?

Me:
Heaven's, what is this? Second grade?
The first Merriam-Webster definition of correspondent is: "one who communicates with another by letter." Yes, the word has other uses. I'm stretching "letter" to cover online posting. Is that OK?

You mean to say that you never thought that your use of the word "correspondent" would be taken to mean Merriam-Webster's second definition, "a person employed by a news agency, periodical, television network, etc., to gather, report, or contribute news, articles, and the like regularly from a distant place"? (Or the top two choices of synonyms for "correspondent": journalist and reporter.) Even with your constant reminder of your work as a journalist?

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that.

But let's put it out for a vote.

Anyone out there ever taken the retired journalist's use of the word "correspondent" to mean "one who communicates with another by letter"?

How about as a synonym for "journalist"?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 26, 2020, 03:08:59 PM
Personally, I have no objection to the nominee, even though I might’ve wished it was somebody else. She is relatively inexperienced, but…
ACB has clerk's for an appeals court judge and Supreme Court Justice, been a law professor, and sat on the 7th Court of Appeals for two years a rs how much more experience should be required?

"Relatively inexperienced." In terms of judicial experience prior to appointment to the court, here's how it looks:

Sotomayor: 17 years
Alito: 16 years
Breyer: 14 years
Kavanaugh: 12 years
Gorsuch: 11 years
Roberts: 2 years
Thomas: 1 year
Kagan: 0 years

Obviously there are other kinds of experience that make for a good justice. But in terms of judicial experience, I don't think it would be unfair to say that she is "relatively inexperienced"--relative to the amount of judicial experience that the majority of the current justices had when they were appointed. (BTW, her judicial experience is actually closer to 3 years, so that puts her right about at the middle relative to the rest of the court.)

She will also be (if confirmed), with the exception of Thomas, the youngest appointee on the court. So "relatively inexperienced" in that sense as well.

If I were you, I'd just accept Pr. Austin's acknowledgement that he has no objection to her appointment, though he would prefer someone else. That's how it's supposed to be, isn't it?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 26, 2020, 03:14:21 PM
Sigh! Got to do it again.
“Evoke” means to recall, it does not mean to bring about or to be. And you need a comma after “scorn.” 😈

You mentioned this is a small audience. It expended and improved during your lifetime ban. No one else here can claim a similar impact.

As far as I can see, if Charles were to leave, it would decrease participation in this forum very significantly, since every post he makes can be guaranteed to elicit at least ten in response--most of which are primarily insults and name-calling. School yard indeed.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 03:15:54 PM
Sigh! Got to do it again.
“Evoke” means to recall, it does not mean to bring about or to be. And you need a comma after “scorn.” 😈
Sorry, my proofreading let me down. Darn comma.


I am also sorry that I missed your irony in saying that it is to evoke, that is to recall, Victorian decorum, but not to emulate it, Thus your usage of the Victorian appellation for yourself would just highlight by ironic contrast your discarding of that politeness.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: John_Hannah on September 26, 2020, 03:23:17 PM
Barret has an excellent reputation among her peers who respect her command of legal repertoire. Reputed to have the respect of liberal and conservative alike.

She probably will not bring about an end to Roe but may please conservative politicians on a host of economic and sociological issues. As I've noted, I believe that the "abortion carrot" is used to hook conservative Christians into supporting causes that have little to do with Christ but everything to do with Republican ideology.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 26, 2020, 03:37:19 PM
Sigh! Got to do it again.
“Evoke” means to recall, it does not mean to bring about or to be. And you need a comma after “scorn.” 😈

You mentioned this is a small audience. It expended and improved during your lifetime ban. No one else here can claim a similar impact.

As far as I can see, if Charles were to leave, it would decrease participation in this forum very significantly, since every post he makes can be guaranteed to elicit at least ten in response--most of which are primarily insults and name-calling. School yard indeed.
Interesting observation ... Rev Hughes reference to an ‘expanded audience size’ was met with a reference to ‘response (or post ) count’.


On another thread there is a discussion on how to increase female participation.  If indeed we are serious about increasing our audience ... to include females as well, then it would seem that Rev Hughes’ observation on how to expand audience participation is far from ‘school yard’ conduct.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 26, 2020, 03:45:27 PM
Barret has an excellent reputation among her peers who respect her command of legal repertoire. Reputed to have the respect of liberal and conservative alike.

She probably will not bring about an end to Roe but may please conservative politicians on a host of economic and sociological issues. As I've noted, I believe that the "abortion carrot" is used to hook conservative Christians into supporting causes that have little to do with Christ but everything to do with Republican ideology.

Peace, JOHN
While the SCOTUS may have minimal affect of Roe v Wade, the repeal of the Hyde Amendment espoused by the current democrat presidential ticket and party leadership will have a horrific effect on the number of unborn who are butchered. 

This has been mentioned on a number of occasions ... you continue to ignore and minimize that fact.  Continually actively advancing the cause of this barbaric party places you in a accomplice role for these additional unnecessary deaths. 
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: David Garner on September 26, 2020, 04:47:37 PM
Barret has an excellent reputation among her peers who respect her command of legal repertoire. Reputed to have the respect of liberal and conservative alike.

She probably will not bring about an end to Roe but may please conservative politicians on a host of economic and sociological issues. As I've noted, I believe that the "abortion carrot" is used to hook conservative Christians into supporting causes that have little to do with Christ but everything to do with Republican ideology.

Peace, JOHN

If only there was a way to govern on the abortion issue without the Court rendering a "constitutional right" out of thin air on specious scientific and shoddy legal ground, perhaps we could avoid the trap.

You know the best way to get Republicans to stop voting Republican because of Supreme Court appointments and the abortion issue?  Overturn Roe and return the issue to the several states where it belongs.  That's also the best way to get Democrats to stop voting Democrat because of Supreme Court appointments and the abortion issue.  It's an interesting side effect of good law versus legislation by judicial fiat.  Back when the Court avoided "political questions," we didn't tend to worry so much about what a president might do in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy.  Back when they were all judges instead of activists, it didn't matter nearly as much.

As ever, Scalia put it best.  Ever a master of rhetoric, he cited to Dred Scott as an example of bad precedent which ought be overturned, and to the dissent by Justice Curtis predicting the very errors the Casey Court was making at the time of this dissent.  At the end of the dissent, he wrote the following:

"There is a poignant aspect to today's opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. 'It is the dimension' of authority, they say, to 'cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.' Ante, at 24.

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case -- its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon to be played out consequences for the Nation--burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself 'call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.'

It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved--an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation -- can be 'speedily and finally settled' by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in hisinaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

Indeed.  Would that even one of the plurality have listened back then.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 26, 2020, 05:37:34 PM
That she is part of a group called "People of Praise." Which, supposedly, degenerates women. If that is true, then they obviously do a very bad job of it.

Now this gave me a chuckle.  So true.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2020, 05:43:48 PM
That she is part of a group called "People of Praise." Which, supposedly, degenerates women. If that is true, then they obviously do a very bad job of it.

Now this gave me a chuckle.  So true.
What do you mean? She's 48 and only just now getting nominated to the Supreme Court. Were she more of a liberated feminist she would have been appointed just out of high school.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 06:01:05 PM
I’ll say it again. Go ahead. Investigate her and confirm her if that’s what those voting want to do. I don’t care. I will not object. I might wish it would be somebody else, but that’s not going to happen. And BTW my not caring and not objecting doesn’t mean a damn thing, just like the noises of those thumping the tub for her Don’t mean much.
Get on with it. It’s not the most important thing happening these weeks.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James S. Rustad on September 26, 2020, 06:07:10 PM
Judging by your frequent forays into condescension and scorn your idea of Victorian politeness and gentility differs from mine.

If you think that Victorian politeness and gentility prohibited condescension and scorn, you are mistaken and need to look further.  There were rigid rules, even on how to express your scorn.

https://www.history.com/news/cutting-was-the-brutal-victorian-version-of-throwing-shade
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 06:08:01 PM
Was Binging "People of Praise" and came across this opinion piece from USA Today. (I don't believe that they are considered part of the far right wing extremist press {anyone to the right of CNN}.)  "Amy Barrett: If Democrats Attack Her over 'People of Praise' Membership, They'll Regret It," (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/26/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise-catholic-democratic-bigotry-column/3549734001/) by opinion columnist for the Kansas City Star, contributor to  USA Today, and Notre Dame graduate. One quote from her opinion piece reads, "You cannot fight bigoty with bigotry. Indulging it won't get us a more tolerant America." By the way, People of Praise is an ecumenical parachurch organization with a primarily charismatic Catholic membership. Women in the organization are call "handmaids" but the reference is to Mary's response to Gabriel rather than Margaret Atwood. She also points out the irony of Joe Biden making his Catholic faith a campaign point with the anticipated attack on Barrett's Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 06:12:11 PM

Likely this informed group has already watched it, but here is her nomination. Pick it up at 19 min, 30 sec if you desire to skip past the president. A very impressive candidate and human being.

https://youtu.be/KDSfMpuSck0 (https://youtu.be/KDSfMpuSck0)
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James_Gale on September 26, 2020, 07:11:43 PM
Personally, I have no objection to the nominee, even though I might’ve wished it was somebody else. She is relatively inexperienced, but…
ACB has clerk's for an appeals court judge and Supreme Court Justice, been a law professor, and sat on the 7th Court of Appeals for two years a rs how much more experience should be required?

"Relatively inexperienced." In terms of judicial experience prior to appointment to the court, here's how it looks:

Sotomayor: 17 years
Alito: 16 years
Breyer: 14 years
Kavanaugh: 12 years
Gorsuch: 11 years
Roberts: 2 years
Thomas: 1 year
Kagan: 0 years

Obviously there are other kinds of experience that make for a good justice. But in terms of judicial experience, I don't think it would be unfair to say that she is "relatively inexperienced"--relative to the amount of judicial experience that the majority of the current justices had when they were appointed. (BTW, her judicial experience is actually closer to 3 years, so that puts her right about at the middle relative to the rest of the court.)

She will also be (if confirmed), with the exception of Thomas, the youngest appointee on the court. So "relatively inexperienced" in that sense as well.

If I were you, I'd just accept Pr. Austin's acknowledgement that he has no objection to her appointment, though he would prefer someone else. That's how it's supposed to be, isn't it?


One question bandied about is the impact on the Court of so little diversity of background. 


Four of the current justices graduated from Harvard Law School and the other four from Yale.  I am happy to see a nominee who would break that mold.  Judge Barrett graduated from Notre Dame.


Five of the eight justices were born in NY, NJ, or DC.  (Justice Breyer was born in California and spent most of his pre-DC professional life in Boston.  Justice Thomas was born in Georgia and has spent nearly all his professional life in DC.  Only Justice Gorsuch was born and worked extensively outside the Acela corridor (in Denver).)  Judge Barrett would add a bit of geographical diversity, having spent most of her adult life in the midwest.


Six of the eight justices served on Courts of Appeals in Acela corridor (Breyer in the First Circuit (Boston), Sotomayor in the Second Circuit (NYC), Alito in the Third Circuit (Philadelphia), and Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit (DC, obviously).  Justice Gorsuch served on the Tenth Circuit (Denver).  Justice Kagan had never been a judge, but by all accounts is an excellent jurist (setting aside whether someone agrees with a particular ruling).  Judge Barrett, from the Seventh Circuit (Chicago), would add a pinch of diversity on this front, but not much more.


All of the justices (and Judge Barrett) have spent the bulk of their careers in government (either as lawyers for the government or as judges), in academia, or both.  Judge Barrett would add no diversity on this front.


Some have pondered whether the Supreme Court would benefit from the appointment of a couple justices from a wider array of law schools and with at least a bit of variety in their professional backgrounds.  To be sure, academic or judicial experience equip a justice to consider and address the kind of arguments made by appellate advocates in a way that other professional experiences might not.  But might perspectives shaped by these other experiences help inform sound decision making?


I'm not certain but am inclined to think so.  Sadly, I don't expect to see any president break the mold any time soon.  The various interest groups likely would view such appointments as fraught with unacceptable uncertainty regarding how a prospective justice might rule.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2020, 07:19:41 PM
I don't think the diversity of law school should be a big deal except that it is a self-fulfilling cycle. The best students go to Harvard and Yale because the big names come from there, and the big names come from there because the best students went there. Great students go elsewhere, too, but so do mediocrities. So the Notre Dame element isn't so much necessary for the court as it is healthy for the American educational system. In the future, someone who gets in to Harvard, Yale, and Notre Dame or somewhere else will at least be inclined to give that other school a chance.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James_Gale on September 26, 2020, 07:40:43 PM
I don't think the diversity of law school should be a big deal except that it is a self-fulfilling cycle. The best students go to Harvard and Yale because the big names come from there, and the big names come from there because the best students went there. Great students go elsewhere, too, but so do mediocrities. So the Notre Dame element isn't so much necessary for the court as it is healthy for the American educational system. In the future, someone who gets in to Harvard, Yale, and Notre Dame or somewhere else will at least be inclined to give that other school a chance.


This is only partly right.  Harvard and Yale indisputably boast two of the country's most prestigious law schools.  But Stanford, Chicago, and several other law schools are viewed within the profession as being very much at the same level.  And for what it's worth, Harvard and Yale also admit mediocrities.  I have encountered them in practice and during my time as one of the hiring partners for the NYC office of a national firm. 


I believe that the large number of Harvard and Yale grads reflects the impact of networks and connections.  The professors, judges, and leading government attorneys in the Acela corridor hire and promote from within their own networks. 
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: John_Hannah on September 26, 2020, 09:10:09 PM
Barret has an excellent reputation among her peers who respect her command of legal repertoire. Reputed to have the respect of liberal and conservative alike.

She probably will not bring about an end to Roe but may please conservative politicians on a host of economic and sociological issues. As I've noted, I believe that the "abortion carrot" is used to hook conservative Christians into supporting causes that have little to do with Christ but everything to do with Republican ideology.

Peace, JOHN

If only there was a way to govern on the abortion issue without the Court rendering a "constitutional right" out of thin air on specious scientific and shoddy legal ground, perhaps we could avoid the trap.

You know the best way to get Republicans to stop voting Republican because of Supreme Court appointments and the abortion issue?  Overturn Roe and return the issue to the several states where it belongs.  That's also the best way to get Democrats to stop voting Democrat because of Supreme Court appointments and the abortion issue.  It's an interesting side effect of good law versus legislation by judicial fiat.  Back when the Court avoided "political questions," we didn't tend to worry so much about what a president might do in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy.  Back when they were all judges instead of activists, it didn't matter nearly as much.

As ever, Scalia put it best.  Ever a master of rhetoric, he cited to Dred Scott as an example of bad precedent which ought be overturned, and to the dissent by Justice Curtis predicting the very errors the Casey Court was making at the time of this dissent.  At the end of the dissent, he wrote the following:

"There is a poignant aspect to today's opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. 'It is the dimension' of authority, they say, to 'cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.' Ante, at 24.

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case -- its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon to be played out consequences for the Nation--burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself 'call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.'

It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved--an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation -- can be 'speedily and finally settled' by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in hisinaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

Indeed.  Would that even one of the plurality have listened back then.

The quest for the villain never ends. Who is the villain in the abortion permission? President? Judges? Democrats? Mainline churches? Liberal Catholics? Liberal Lutherans? Many are worthy of suspicion. The real villain is half of the American people who approve and strongly resist change to the status quo.

The Dred Scott comparison is indeed apt. In time it will be decided to reverse the 1973 decision. Let us hope that it is not as wrenching as when in the 19th century we had the Civil War and the aftermath of unrest that lingers to this day. Of course, there are those who relish the idea of war. I am retired Army and hardly am willing to join them.

Best wishes to Judge Coney Barrett.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: David Garner on September 26, 2020, 10:02:24 PM
The quest for the villain never ends. Who is the villain in the abortion permission? President? Judges? Democrats? Mainline churches? Liberal Catholics? Liberal Lutherans? Many are worthy of suspicion. The real villain is half of the American people who approve and strongly resist change to the status quo.

The Dred Scott comparison is indeed apt. In time it will be decided to reverse the 1973 decision. Let us hope that it is not as wrenching as when in the 19th century we had the Civil War and the aftermath of unrest that lingers to this day. Of course, there are those who relish the idea of war. I am retired Army and hardly am willing to join them.

Agree on all counts.  Especially war.

But that's where I think Justice Scalia truly hit the nail on the head.  The reason people lose their minds over Supreme Court nominations right now is the "balance of the Court" -- that is, it is very important to get like-minded people on the Court because the Court can rule the entire country from the bench.

The question is, why should it?  And don't we want justices like Judge Comey-Barrett who respect the Constitution enough to limit their own power, and the Court's own power?  Who leave political questions to the people instead of 9 unelected black-robed tyrants?  Scalia's entire point was that the Court meddling in these areas leaves the victor with a tenuous victory and the loser feeling cheated.  That is a better prescription for war than simply repealing Roe and returning the matter to the states.  Why?  Because there are elected representatives in each state who may be persuaded to the right cause, and failing that, voted out should the electorate so decide.  Which cause you think is right matters little.  In a democracy, the right to self-government is paramount.  When that fails, you see the vitriol and lying and cheating and so forth we have right now with Supreme Court appointments.

It shouldn't matter this much.  It only does because judges do whatever they want to get the outcome they desire.  May soon-to-be Justice Comey-Barrett rectify that with all due haste.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Pr. Luke Zimmerman on September 26, 2020, 10:14:35 PM
I don't think the diversity of law school should be a big deal except that it is a self-fulfilling cycle. The best students go to Harvard and Yale because the big names come from there, and the big names come from there because the best students went there. Great students go elsewhere, too, but so do mediocrities. So the Notre Dame element isn't so much necessary for the court as it is healthy for the American educational system. In the future, someone who gets in to Harvard, Yale, and Notre Dame or somewhere else will at least be inclined to give that other school a chance.


This is only partly right.  Harvard and Yale indisputably boast two of the country's most prestigious law schools.  But Stanford, Chicago, and several other law schools are viewed within the profession as being very much at the same level.  And for what it's worth, Harvard and Yale also admit mediocrities.  I have encountered them in practice and during my time as one of the hiring partners for the NYC office of a national firm. 


I believe that the large number of Harvard and Yale grads reflects the impact of networks and connections.  The professors, judges, and leading government attorneys in the Acela corridor hire and promote from within their own networks.

I think that it’s interesting that President Trump’s “short list” of potential Supreme Court appointees includes numerous graduates from law schools other than Harvard or Yale. Some examples include the following Federal Appeals Court judges:
- Britt Grant (Stanford)
- James Ho (Chicago)
- Allison Jones Rushing (Duke)
- Amal Thapar (California-Berkeley)

Though basically a layman when it comes to legal matters, I do like seeing other law schools represented on that list. I would think/hope that a Democratic Party President could find potential appointees with a similar variety of law school training.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 26, 2020, 10:55:43 PM
In terms of diversity, it's also interesting to note that, if ACB is confirmed, the Supreme Court will consist of six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and then Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic and may still consider himself Catholic, though he attends an Episcopal church. That would have been unthinkable 25 years ago.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2020, 11:37:58 PM
In terms of diversity, it's also interesting to note that, if ACB is confirmed, the Supreme Court will consist of six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and then Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic and may still consider himself Catholic, though he attends an Episcopal church. That would have been unthinkable 25 years ago.
I think that is because Judaism and Roman Catholicism seek to harmonize the faith with Reason more than do Protestants. That means they have more experience with moral reasoning that doesn't depend on revelation.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on September 26, 2020, 11:40:49 PM
But that's where I think Justice Scalia truly hit the nail on the head.  The reason people lose their minds over Supreme Court nominations right now is the "balance of the Court" -- that is, it is very important to get like-minded people on the Court because the Court can rule the entire country from the bench.

The question is, why should it?  And don't we want justices like Judge Comey-Barrett who respect the Constitution enough to limit their own power, and the Court's own power?  Who leave political questions to the people instead of 9 unelected black-robed tyrants?  Scalia's entire point was that the Court meddling in these areas leaves the victor with a tenuous victory and the loser feeling cheated.  That is a better prescription for war than simply repealing Roe and returning the matter to the states.  Why?  Because there are elected representatives in each state who may be persuaded to the right cause, and failing that, voted out should the electorate so decide.  Which cause you think is right matters little.  In a democracy, the right to self-government is paramount.  When that fails, you see the vitriol and lying and cheating and so forth we have right now with Supreme Court appointments.

It shouldn't matter this much.  It only does because judges do whatever they want to get the outcome they desire.  May soon-to-be Justice Comey-Barrett rectify that with all due haste.

231 years after ratifying the Constitution, and 155 years after Appomattox we are still trying to figure out whether the United States of America is Republic in its own right or an amalgamation of semi-autonomous States.

Social Justice Warriors of all stripes have figured out that it is generally easier, quicker, and cheaper to enact a single "law of the land" either by Judicial fiat (usually but not always SCOTUS) or by leveraging (I call it, extorting) Federal funding to States adopting some type of legislation; ie, the nationwide 0.08 DUI standard, the nationwide age 21 drinking age, etc, etc.

So to return abortion regulation to the states would be to increase their work fifty-fold.

If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.

More difficult, more time consuming, more costly...that is the way that we must go if we are to have any semblance of national unity.

Which should never be confused with uniformity.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 03:51:38 AM
If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.


Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 27, 2020, 08:59:57 AM
If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.


Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?
Not exactly. New York and California have many more votes in the Electoral College than does Montana.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: B Hughes on September 27, 2020, 10:13:59 AM

The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics (https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics)

Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James_Gale on September 27, 2020, 11:15:22 AM
If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.


Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?
Not exactly. New York and California have many more votes in the Electoral College than does Montana.


I think that you may be missing his point?  I think that he's asking whether the electoral college treats all of New York as if it is the same, all of California if it is the same, etc.  If that is his question, the answer is that neither the Constitution nor any federal law envisions an electoral college that necessarily does any such thing.   The Constitution does not tell any state how to select its electors.  That is left to state legislatures.  And indeed, although none does so, a state legislature could decide to appoint electors directly rather than basing the appointment on the results of an election.  Moreover, and this gets to Pr. Stoffregen's question, state legislatures choosing to use elections to select electors do not need to award those electors on a winner-take-all basis.  Indeed, two states--Maine and Nebraska--do not award electors this way.  The statewide winner in those states gets two electors (corresponding to the state's two Senate seats) and the winner in each Congressional district wins the elector corresponding to the single representative serving that district.  Another alternative, not used anywhere, would be for a state to allocate its electors in direct proportion to the results of the popular vote within the state.  None does.  The fact that all of California is treated the same therefore is not an inherent feature of the electoral college.  Rather, it reflects a choice made by California's state legislature.  The same is true in the District of Columbia and in every state aside from Maine and Nebraska.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 27, 2020, 11:41:22 AM

The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics (https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics)
Sounds more like systemic racism (assuming it really exists).  The vast majority of civilization knows that parents who adopt accept challenges that natural parents do not face ... creating a mixed race family has its special set of additional and unique challenges ... Apparently ACB is so far above reproach that in desperation the proverbial race card is pulled ... how far has the nation declined.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Jim Butler on September 27, 2020, 12:04:58 PM
If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.


Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?

I'm not sure of your point.

What does the electoral college have to do with COVID standards?

I'm one of those people who believes that the best government is local government: the local town/city council is better than state government and the state is better than Federal.

In terms of COVID, Massachusetts is one of the hardest hit states in the country, yet we have counties that have had very few cases. At the same time, cities like Everett were hit hard and are still struggling to get their caseload down. While the commonwealth will allow for greater numbers in restaurants and eating at bars as of Sept. 28, many towns and cities are not. So the argument that one size does not fit all makes perfect sense.

But I have no idea what this to with the electoral college.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 27, 2020, 12:11:20 PM
I think the electoral college assumed that some states will have interests as a state that are not the same or even in competition with other states. Thus, California says x with its votes, Texas says y with its votes, and whoever ends up with the most overall carries the day. That system recognizes the state as a unit with a collective interest. Awarding the votes by congressional district takes the same idea and applies it to a smaller unit. At the least the states are set by the constitution in agreement with the other states. Congressional districts are often gerrymandered without any input from other states. So to me it makes the most sense for states to award their votes on a winner take all basis. If you try for proportional, what you're basically saying is that the state ha no interest as a statein the federal government's executive branch.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: B Hughes on September 27, 2020, 12:13:25 PM
Apparently ACB is so far above reproach that in desperation the proverbial race card is pulled ... how far has the nation declined.

Breaking: Barret uses Haitian children as lawn jockeys. Like Kavanaugh, spurious claims against her character will be routine and just as silly.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 27, 2020, 12:22:48 PM
As Judge Barrett is now the nominee we are hearing the cries of panic of what this one justice will do to the cherished values and rights of some. Yes, she is conservative in her views.  But shouldn't we want to know what she thinks about the constitution first and foremost? Shouldn't we want to know her commitment to established law? In her hearings for the appellate judge position she assured those questioning her that the law was to be considered on its own merits. Her faith, while personally important to her, is not what will determine the legitimacy of a law or legal opinion. Her job, if she receives it, will be to uphold the law as it is faithful to the constitution. If she should render an opinion that Roe v. Wade is not constitutional, then let the legislature pass a law that guarantees this 'right' in such a way that it can withstand a court challenge.  If certain parts of the Affordable Care Act are ruled as not fully lawful, then go back to the legislature and draft a law that can be upheld by this high court if challenged. Not all laws are struck down by the Supreme Court.  Some have stood the test of time.  But not all laws or opinions of laws can do so.  Instead of seeing the court as the bastion of protection for things like abortion rights, let the legislature do its job and form a law to do that job.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 27, 2020, 01:15:41 PM
Pastor Engebretson:
As Judge Barrett is now the nominee we are hearing the cries of panic of what this one justice will do to the cherished values and rights of some. Yes, she is conservative in her views.  But shouldn't we want to know what she thinks about the constitution first and foremost? Shouldn't we want to know her commitment to established law?
Me:
Yes, we should.

Pastor Engebretson:
 In her hearings for the appellate judge position she assured those questioning her that the law was to be considered on its own merits. Her faith, while personally important to her, is not what will determine the legitimacy of a law or legal opinion. Her job, if she receives it, will be to uphold the law as it is faithful to the constitution. If she should render an opinion that Roe v. Wade is not constitutional, then let the legislature pass a law that guarantees this 'right' in such a way that it can withstand a court challenge.
Me:
Yes. And this is why overturning Roe v. Wade will not end "liberal" abortion laws. The large majority, probably 60 per cent or more, of the American public want the current laws. If they are not protected as a "constitutional" right; other ways will be found. The "pro-life" folk who put their eggs  :D  in overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, if they are successful, will just create more legal tangles for the states; but they will not end legal abortions. And along the way, there is the good chance that more women will suffer and/or die trying to work around the legal situations they face.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James_Gale on September 27, 2020, 01:17:27 PM
I think the electoral college assumed that some states will have interests as a state that are not the same or even in competition with other states. Thus, California says x with its votes, Texas says y with its votes, and whoever ends up with the most overall carries the day. That system recognizes the state as a unit with a collective interest. Awarding the votes by congressional district takes the same idea and applies it to a smaller unit. At the least the states are set by the constitution in agreement with the other states. Congressional districts are often gerrymandered without any input from other states. So to me it makes the most sense for states to award their votes on a winner take all basis. If you try for proportional, what you're basically saying is that the state ha no interest as a statein the federal government's executive branch.


The point here is that the Constitution permits state legislatures to decide how to allocate the state's electoral votes.  Your arguments don't really go to any assumptions underlying the Constitutional framework itself.  Rather, they go to how state legislatures might best exercise the wide discretion accorded to them by the Constitution.


The recognition that a states as states had particular interests that ought to be represented itself perhaps was best exemplified by the original provision that senators be elected by state legislatures.  That practice prevailed until the early 1900s.  Direct election of senators most assuredly has some advantages, particularly the elimination of legislative deadlock over selection of senators.  However, the practice also obscures the Constitutional notion that Senators (unlike House members) represent states; They represent a state's people only indirectly.  Moreover, because each state is equal in dignity, each would have equal representation in the Senate.  (As most here likely know, the one Constitutional provision that effectively can't be amended is that a state's right to equal representation in the Senate can't be eliminated without the state's consent.)


Germany has been more successful in capturing this notion, aided by the use of parliamentary systems in its states (Länder).  The states' governments directly control their votes in the federal senate (the Bundesrat). 
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James_Gale on September 27, 2020, 01:29:07 PM
Pastor Engebretson:
As Judge Barrett is now the nominee we are hearing the cries of panic of what this one justice will do to the cherished values and rights of some. Yes, she is conservative in her views.  But shouldn't we want to know what she thinks about the constitution first and foremost? Shouldn't we want to know her commitment to established law?
Me:
Yes, we should.

Pastor Engebretson:
 In her hearings for the appellate judge position she assured those questioning her that the law was to be considered on its own merits. Her faith, while personally important to her, is not what will determine the legitimacy of a law or legal opinion. Her job, if she receives it, will be to uphold the law as it is faithful to the constitution. If she should render an opinion that Roe v. Wade is not constitutional, then let the legislature pass a law that guarantees this 'right' in such a way that it can withstand a court challenge.
Me:
Yes. And this is why overturning Roe v. Wade will not end "liberal" abortion laws. The large majority, probably 60 per cent or more, of the American public want the current laws. If they are not protected as a "constitutional" right; other ways will be found. The "pro-life" folk who put their eggs  :D  in overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, if they are successful, will just create more legal tangles for the states; but they will not end legal abortions. And along the way, there is the good chance that more women will suffer and/or die trying to work around the legal situations they face.


What you call "legal tangles" is nothing more or less than the operation of democratic governance.  Eliminating legal tangles democratic governance strikes me as undesirable. 


But yes, overturning Roe v Wade would not outlaw abortion.  Conservative judges for the most part have argued that they lack any basis in law for doing such a thing.  Instead, their argument is that the Constitution says nothing about abortion one way or another.  Thus, laws regarding abortion are within the purview of the political branches.  And indeed, policy preferences aside, most legal scholars across the spectrum agree that the legal reasoning underlying Roe v. Wade was nonsense.  Even so, in my opinion, Roe and subsequent cases are now so ingrained in our system that most judges--even judges who find those cases both without foundation and morally repugnant--will be very reluctant to overrule them. 
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 27, 2020, 01:56:45 PM
It's amazing. Whenever you read a liberal columnist, they say that reproductive rights are on the ballot. They aren't panicked at the death of RBG because now there might be some more legal hoopla about legal abortion.

And they generally miss the point. Though I prefer the theological language of procreation rather than reproduction, I can assure everyone that I would never favor a law that prohibited anyone from reproducing. Nor would I ever favor a law that demanded anyone reproduce. Laws against abortion have nothing to do with reproductive rights. If you're pregnant or gotten someone pregnant, you've already reproduced.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: John_Hannah on September 27, 2020, 02:24:30 PM

The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics (https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics)

It's not "woke" at all. Lorna and I adopted two black children 55 years ago and faced similar criticism. Racism at work back then. Fortunately it was only a tiny fraction of people we ran into and they weren't the nuttiest folks we have met; so we have never worried about it nor have the kids.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 27, 2020, 02:31:01 PM
And Pastor Hannah, I believe the Democrats have Stayed away from those kind of things concerning her family. It is inevitable that some from certain quarters will bring them up, but they are not part of the Democrat’s  discussion. (And now someone is going to find some Democrat somewhere who said something about it. I don’t care.)
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: John_Hannah on September 27, 2020, 02:33:15 PM
And Pastor Hannah, I believe the Democrats have Stayed away from those kind of things concerning her family. It is inevitable that some from certain quarters will bring them up, but they are not part of the Democrat’s  discussion. (And now someone is going to find some Democrat somewhere who said something about it. I don’t care.)

 ;D
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: DeHall1 on September 27, 2020, 03:12:38 PM
And Pastor Hannah, I believe the Democrats have Stayed away from those kind of things concerning her family. It is inevitable that some from certain quarters will bring them up, but they are not part of the Democrat’s  discussion. (And now someone is going to find some Democrat somewhere who said something about it. I don’t care.)

It’s like you never read the link provided earlier. 
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 27, 2020, 03:18:32 PM
I tend to be fairly conservative in terms of institutional things. I've not been eager to change the electoral college (which, until the last handful of years, used to be seen as the Democrats' "firewall"!), or to alter the way the Supreme Court is chosen or operates. I'm rethinking that a little now, due in part to a comment I just read somewhere relating to the concept of "lifetime appointments." The writer observed that changing realities have led to situations the founders didn't envision. So, for instance, the increasing life expectancy has led to the "average" Supreme Court tenure today being many years longer than it was in the first years of the Republic. In the same, way, in 1790 the population of the largest state (Virginia) was about thirteen times that of the smallest state (Delaware). Today the population of the largest state (California) is about 68 times that of the smallest state (Wyoming).

The point is that conditions today are really different from those at the time of the founding. The purpose of the amendment process is to allow for course corrections when conditions are different; we've seen this with regard to slavery, the franchise, elections, etc. I'm beginning to be convinced that some of these contested matters today actually damage the concept of "federalism." The implications of "federalism" today as expressed both in the Senate and in Electoral College are profoundly different than the founders ever anticipated. Same thing with the Supreme Court.

So it seems to me the conversation ought to focus on how best to preserve the essence of the federalism the founders established, while acknowledging the real frustration that the federalist institutions provokes in many millions of Americans.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 27, 2020, 03:52:16 PM
Perhaps the increased disparity in population size is all the more reason to maintain the status quo ... wasn’t the disparity is state population the original reason for the concept of the electoral college?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 27, 2020, 04:16:46 PM
Perhaps the increased disparity in population size is all the more reason to maintain the status quo ... wasn’t the disparity is state population the original reason for the concept of the electoral college?

No, not really. That played more of a role in the concept of the Senate. The two issues that were most significant in the concept of the electoral college, as I understand it, were (1) a compromise solution between those who wanted direct election of the president and those who wanted the president chosen by Congress; and (2) a compromise over the question of how slaves should be counted--so really an extension of that famous "3/5" compromise. Since the slave states (particularly Virginia) felt they were getting the shaft by not counting their full population in determining the number of electors, the Electoral College melded the "based on population" concept with the "two from each state" concept. But I don't think the population disparity per se was at the forefront of the debate on the Electoral College.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 05:10:13 PM
If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.


Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?
Not exactly. New York and California have many more votes in the Electoral College than does Montana.


Not what I meant. Every person in New York or California, whether they are from the big cities or the remote rural areas, are treated as the same by the electoral college. The people living in the rural/military Sacramento Valley are quite different from the people living in San Francisco. As noted in another post, the people living in New York City are different from the people living in upper New York. Whoever gets the most votes of the people - even if nearly all come from the small areas of LA and SF counties - the winner gets all of the electoral votes. The rural folks are treated just like they were folks in the cities. Think also of Upper Michigan vs. Detroit folks. Even when serving in Nebraska, the many rural congregations knew that their people were living in a different culture than those living in Omaha.



Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 05:20:01 PM
If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.


Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?
Not exactly. New York and California have many more votes in the Electoral College than does Montana.


I think that you may be missing his point?  I think that he's asking whether the electoral college treats all of New York as if it is the same, all of California if it is the same, etc.  If that is his question, the answer is that neither the Constitution nor any federal law envisions an electoral college that necessarily does any such thing.   The Constitution does not tell any state how to select its electors.  That is left to state legislatures.  And indeed, although none does so, a state legislature could decide to appoint electors directly rather than basing the appointment on the results of an election.  Moreover, and this gets to Pr. Stoffregen's question, state legislatures choosing to use elections to select electors do not need to award those electors on a winner-take-all basis.  Indeed, two states--Maine and Nebraska--do not award electors this way.  The statewide winner in those states gets two electors (corresponding to the state's two Senate seats) and the winner in each Congressional district wins the elector corresponding to the single representative serving that district.  Another alternative, not used anywhere, would be for a state to allocate its electors in direct proportion to the results of the popular vote within the state.  None does.  The fact that all of California is treated the same therefore is not an inherent feature of the electoral college.  Rather, it reflects a choice made by California's state legislature.  The same is true in the District of Columbia and in every state aside from Maine and Nebraska.


Yes, that was my point. I also recognized that the decision to award all electoral votes to the winner in the state elections is a choice each state makes. When our sons were going to school in Florida, we told them to vote there. Regardless of how they voted in Wyoming (our home state at the time,) their 3 electoral votes were going red. In Florida their votes could make a difference. Unfortunately, students had to apply for their voter registration 30 days before the election in Florida. Many college students didn't vote (including our sons). Conversely, as I recall, Dick Cheney, as his running mate, couldn't vote in the same state as George Bush (Texas), so he, just a couple days before the election, registered to vote in Wyoming.


States also differ on voter registration rules.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 05:28:07 PM
If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.


Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?

I'm not sure of your point.

What does the electoral college have to do with COVID standards?

I'm one of those people who believes that the best government is local government: the local town/city council is better than state government and the state is better than Federal.

In terms of COVID, Massachusetts is one of the hardest hit states in the country, yet we have counties that have had very few cases. At the same time, cities like Everett were hit hard and are still struggling to get their caseload down. While the commonwealth will allow for greater numbers in restaurants and eating at bars as of Sept. 28, many towns and cities are not. So the argument that one size does not fit all makes perfect sense.

But I have no idea what this to with the electoral college.


Perhaps the low number of cases in some counties is because they followed guidelines that were meant to reduce the number of new cases in places where that was important.


In most states, the electoral college is precisely, "one size fits all." The candidate with the most votes gets all the electoral college votes, even if many areas of the state the other candidate got the most votes.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 27, 2020, 05:56:03 PM
If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.


Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?
Not exactly. New York and California have many more votes in the Electoral College than does Montana.


I think that you may be missing his point?  I think that he's asking whether the electoral college treats all of New York as if it is the same, all of California if it is the same, etc.  If that is his question, the answer is that neither the Constitution nor any federal law envisions an electoral college that necessarily does any such thing.   The Constitution does not tell any state how to select its electors.  That is left to state legislatures.  And indeed, although none does so, a state legislature could decide to appoint electors directly rather than basing the appointment on the results of an election.  Moreover, and this gets to Pr. Stoffregen's question, state legislatures choosing to use elections to select electors do not need to award those electors on a winner-take-all basis.  Indeed, two states--Maine and Nebraska--do not award electors this way.  The statewide winner in those states gets two electors (corresponding to the state's two Senate seats) and the winner in each Congressional district wins the elector corresponding to the single representative serving that district.  Another alternative, not used anywhere, would be for a state to allocate its electors in direct proportion to the results of the popular vote within the state.  None does.  The fact that all of California is treated the same therefore is not an inherent feature of the electoral college.  Rather, it reflects a choice made by California's state legislature.  The same is true in the District of Columbia and in every state aside from Maine and Nebraska.


Yes, that was my point. I also recognized that the decision to award all electoral votes to the winner in the state elections is a choice each state makes. When our sons were going to school in Florida, we told them to vote there. Regardless of how they voted in Wyoming (our home state at the time,) their 3 electoral votes were going red. In Florida their votes could make a difference. Unfortunately, students had to apply for their voter registration 30 days before the election in Florida. Many college students didn't vote (including our sons). Conversely, as I recall, Dick Cheney, as his running mate, couldn't vote in the same state as George Bush (Texas), so he, just a couple days before the election, registered to vote in Wyoming.


States also differ on voter registration rules.
“ Unfortunately, students had to apply for their voter registration 30 days before the election in Florida. Many college students didn't vote (including our sons).”

Can’t imagine not having a to register 30 days ahead ... in heavy registration elections it takes that long to enter all the last minute registrations.


30 day registration has been the norm for years. Most likely Mr Cheney registered at least 30 days prior to the election.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James_Gale on September 27, 2020, 06:01:33 PM
If we have learned ANYTHING through the reactions to CV-19; it is that one size generally does NOT fit all; whether that be a single nationwide standard or a single standard for a State.  Iowa is not New York.  And the finger lake  region of upstate NY is not NYC.
Doesn't the electoral college treat all of NY and California and every other state as if it were the same?
Not exactly. New York and California have many more votes in the Electoral College than does Montana.


I think that you may be missing his point?  I think that he's asking whether the electoral college treats all of New York as if it is the same, all of California if it is the same, etc.  If that is his question, the answer is that neither the Constitution nor any federal law envisions an electoral college that necessarily does any such thing.   The Constitution does not tell any state how to select its electors.  That is left to state legislatures.  And indeed, although none does so, a state legislature could decide to appoint electors directly rather than basing the appointment on the results of an election.  Moreover, and this gets to Pr. Stoffregen's question, state legislatures choosing to use elections to select electors do not need to award those electors on a winner-take-all basis.  Indeed, two states--Maine and Nebraska--do not award electors this way.  The statewide winner in those states gets two electors (corresponding to the state's two Senate seats) and the winner in each Congressional district wins the elector corresponding to the single representative serving that district.  Another alternative, not used anywhere, would be for a state to allocate its electors in direct proportion to the results of the popular vote within the state.  None does.  The fact that all of California is treated the same therefore is not an inherent feature of the electoral college.  Rather, it reflects a choice made by California's state legislature.  The same is true in the District of Columbia and in every state aside from Maine and Nebraska.


Yes, that was my point. I also recognized that the decision to award all electoral votes to the winner in the state elections is a choice each state makes. When our sons were going to school in Florida, we told them to vote there. Regardless of how they voted in Wyoming (our home state at the time,) their 3 electoral votes were going red. In Florida their votes could make a difference. Unfortunately, students had to apply for their voter registration 30 days before the election in Florida. Many college students didn't vote (including our sons). Conversely, as I recall, Dick Cheney, as his running mate, couldn't vote in the same state as George Bush (Texas), so he, just a couple days before the election, registered to vote in Wyoming.


States also differ on voter registration rules.


The problem was not that Cheney was precluded from voting in Texas for the Bush-Cheney ticket. It was that an elector may not cast both presidential and vice-presidential ballots for candidates who reside in the elector’s home state. This, if Cheney had not changed his official residence, Texas electors would not have been able to vote both for Bush and for Cheney.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 06:02:34 PM
The problem was not that Cheney was precluded from voting in Texas for the Bush-Cheney ticket. It was that an elector may not cast both presidential and vice-presidential ballots for candidates who reside in the elector’s home state. This, if Cheney had not changed his official residence, Texas electors would not have been able to vote both for Bush and for Cheney.


Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Pastor Ken Kimball on September 27, 2020, 07:31:59 PM
I tend to be fairly conservative in terms of institutional things. I've not been eager to change the electoral college (which, until the last handful of years, used to be seen as the Democrats' "firewall"!), or to alter the way the Supreme Court is chosen or operates. I'm rethinking that a little now, due in part to a comment I just read somewhere relating to the concept of "lifetime appointments." The writer observed that changing realities have led to situations the founders didn't envision. So, for instance, the increasing life expectancy has led to the "average" Supreme Court tenure today being many years longer than it was in the first years of the Republic. In the same, way, in 1790 the population of the largest state (Virginia) was about thirteen times that of the smallest state (Delaware). Today the population of the largest state (California) is about 68 times that of the smallest state (Wyoming).

The point is that conditions today are really different from those at the time of the founding. The purpose of the amendment process is to allow for course corrections when conditions are different; we've seen this with regard to slavery, the franchise, elections, etc. I'm beginning to be convinced that some of these contested matters today actually damage the concept of "federalism." The implications of "federalism" today as expressed both in the Senate and in Electoral College are profoundly different than the founders ever anticipated. Same thing with the Supreme Court.

So it seems to me the conversation ought to focus on how best to preserve the essence of the federalism the founders established, while acknowledging the real frustration that the federalist institutions provokes in many millions of Americans.
I am grateful the constitutional amendment process is difficult with a high bar for passage and that passage is not a matter of national popular vote but will require (I  think) 3/4 of the states approving such amendments to the Constitution in addition to both houses of Congress.  My regional-situational bias may be showing (midwest, rural) but as much as I love and respect you Dick, in your mildly stated proposal I see the bias of a large population coastal state dominated by a largely urban Democratic Party.  I do not want any weakening of the federalist system, which has already been weakened enough by progressive presidents, courts, and a legislative branch that is all too often deferential to imperial presidencies.  Yes, I recognize the hyperbole of "imperial."  I prefer the Constitution in its presently amended state; I would be happier if our government was actually following it more closely (e.g. the primacy of the legislative branch and SCOTUS that didn't make law, leaving law-making (e.g. Roe, Obergefell, et al) to Congress and the states (with their governments).  I have a fair amount of anxiety over the prospect of coastal-urban majoritarian tyranny imposing unlivable conditions on the rural areas with knee-jerk climate change policies and 1st and 2nd Amendment limitations, among other things, things done with the best of intentions, but we know the destination of the road they pave. 
Ken
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 27, 2020, 10:34:15 PM
Thanks, Ken, for your thoughtful response. For the record, though I obviously live in California, and I'm a registered Democrat (as you once were), I have spent most of my life in rural northern California, which in many respects is a lot more like Iowa than it is San Francisco or Los Angeles. My county is firmly purple, my congressman and state legislators all Republicans. (So, in fact, is my county supervisor, for whom i voted in the last election.)
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Pastor Ken Kimball on September 27, 2020, 11:09:32 PM
Thanks, Ken, for your thoughtful response. For the record, though I obviously live in California, and I'm a registered Democrat (as you once were), I have spent most of my life in rural northern California, which in many respects is a lot more like Iowa than it is San Francisco or Los Angeles. My county is firmly purple, my congressman and state legislators all Republicans. (So, in fact, is my county supervisor, for whom i voted in the last election.)
Thanks Richard.  In crafting my response, I tried not to paint or smear you as a progressive Democrat--I think you are Democrat as I once was (growing up a Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party--DFL) and I don't impute to you the radical progressivism  that has overtaken so much of my former party.  Though I apparently at the present am still registered as Republican (only since 2016 when I did so mostly in order to attend the GOP caucus to vote for Rubio in order to oppose Trump--what turned out to be an exercise in futility), I remember when my old party was the party of the "little guy" over against the party of big corporations.  Ironically, it seems my old party has become the party of big corporations (Google, Microsoft, etc.) that cast the "little guy" as "deplorable" and those "clinging to guns and religion."  Just as in my being part of the those who formed the NALC  still having good friends (like you) who remain orthodox despite remaining in the ELCA, I am a conservative Reagan Democrat who still has friends who are Democrats but not progressives of the Bernie, AOC, Omar, et al type.  Peter (a Cruz guy from 2016) pretty well represents my view of Trump (pay attention to results, not his Tweets or speaking).  I wait in hope that centrist-Democrats (pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-national security) and Republicans of the same stripe can find grounds to form a more centrist party.  I had hopes at one point that such could be found--but it is certainly not Biden who has abandoned what few centrist positions he held in order to accommodate followers of Bernie and AOC (particularly exemplified in his switch to oppose the Hyde amendment).  For me, the "anyone but Trump" is not enough.  I need a someone who would actually have staked out the center position between radical progressivism and Trumpian nationalism.  Given the choices as they are now, Trumpism (with his many faults) is preferable to the radical progressivism (socialism?) that Biden has apparently committed himself.  That being said, I still value your friendship and still respect you despite your obvious error in choosing Biden as the only viable  alternative to Trump.  And I still prefer the present Constitutional order of the electoral college and federalism to the progressive alternative.  To quote Scalia, when he was questioned about his friendship with Ginsberg, "there are more important things than votes."  Your friendship is one of those "more important things."  Ken
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 28, 2020, 01:08:57 PM
The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics (https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics)
Tragically Rev Hughes was bullied off the forum .. but his body of posts remains.

The criticism of ACB’s adoption of Haitian children simply reveals the demented moral condition of some progressives.  It is pointed out than Hollywood mavens such as Madonna, Sandra Bullock and the Pitt/Jolie have adopted children of similar nationality/race ... and are correctly praised by MSM ... but when ACB does it it criticized.


Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: John_Hannah on September 28, 2020, 01:53:48 PM
The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics (https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics)
Tragically Rev Hughes was bullied off the forum .. but his body of posts remains.

The criticism of ACB’s adoption of Haitian children simply reveals the demented moral condition of some progressives.  It is pointed out than Hollywood mavens such as Madonna, Sandra Bullock and the Pitt/Jolie have adopted children of similar nationality/race ... and are correctly praised by MSM ... but when ACB does it it criticized.


Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?

You provide enough condemnation to cover all the rest of us.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Mark Brown on September 28, 2020, 02:44:44 PM
I tend to be fairly conservative in terms of institutional things. I've not been eager to change the electoral college (which, until the last handful of years, used to be seen as the Democrats' "firewall"!), or to alter the way the Supreme Court is chosen or operates. I'm rethinking that a little now, due in part to a comment I just read somewhere relating to the concept of "lifetime appointments." The writer observed that changing realities have led to situations the founders didn't envision. So, for instance, the increasing life expectancy has led to the "average" Supreme Court tenure today being many years longer than it was in the first years of the Republic. In the same, way, in 1790 the population of the largest state (Virginia) was about thirteen times that of the smallest state (Delaware). Today the population of the largest state (California) is about 68 times that of the smallest state (Wyoming).

The point is that conditions today are really different from those at the time of the founding. The purpose of the amendment process is to allow for course corrections when conditions are different; we've seen this with regard to slavery, the franchise, elections, etc. I'm beginning to be convinced that some of these contested matters today actually damage the concept of "federalism." The implications of "federalism" today as expressed both in the Senate and in Electoral College are profoundly different than the founders ever anticipated. Same thing with the Supreme Court.

So it seems to me the conversation ought to focus on how best to preserve the essence of the federalism the founders established, while acknowledging the real frustration that the federalist institutions provokes in many millions of Americans.

If you are looking for solutions to those problems, which I agree the modern operating parameters are out of whack, there are two much better ones.  The first one is that CA, TX, NY, IL and a few other states that you hear about from time to time should be broken up into more states.  Of course what that might tend to do is unleash a bunch of currently disenfranchised voters like me in Western NY who might return a couple of GOP senators.  But the biggest change that should be done is increase the size of the house.  The constitution doesn't set it but imagined around 30,000 people per rep.  Within living memory (1953) is was 1 rep per roughly 300K.  Today?  1 rep per over 710K with CA being closer to 900K just due to the allocation rules.  So, if you took the constitution's thoughts you'd have roughly 11,000 reps.  If you set it mid 20th century, 1,100 reps.  So between a 2x - 20x increase.  I'd also argue for the repeal of the direct election of senators (the 17th) and restore them to election by the state legislatures.

I think that the two problems that our current incarnation is having a hard time solving are: a) making people feel like they are citizens and not subjects.  The fact that it takes a million dollars just to be in a competitive house race rules out most people.  And when you represent a million people, you can't do anything other than treat them as statistical groups.  b) attempts to force ways of life from the top down on a pluralistic continental nation are paradoxically too easy.  Capture 5 people on the Super-legislature of the Supreme Court and unless people are willing to take up arms, you get what you want.  Making more smaller states would make that strategy tougher.  It would also allow much more experimentation at the state level.  Imagine a State of SanFran and a State of Inland CA.  The techno-utopians could fight it out with the progressives to build paradise on earth.  And the farmers and Mormons could recreate Jefferson's Yeoman Pastoral.   And the general rule from both to their senators?  Keep the Federal gov't distant and small.

But none of that will happen, because the people who have shimmied to the top of the current system would have to give up what is imperial power.   There isn't much wrong with our system that couldn't be fixed by restoring it to intended functioning.  But there is no elite buy in to that.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 28, 2020, 05:23:39 PM
The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics (https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics)
Tragically Rev Hughes was bullied off the forum .. but his body of posts remains.

The criticism of ACB’s adoption of Haitian children simply reveals the demented moral condition of some progressives.  It is pointed out than Hollywood mavens such as Madonna, Sandra Bullock and the Pitt/Jolie have adopted children of similar nationality/race ... and are correctly praised by MSM ... but when ACB does it it criticized.


Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?

Where is the criticism among forum membership of ACB's generous and faithful adoption of children from Haiti? I can't recall that anyone here has condemned her for it.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 28, 2020, 05:49:22 PM
The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics (https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics)
Tragically Rev Hughes was bullied off the forum .. but his body of posts remains.

The criticism of ACB’s adoption of Haitian children simply reveals the demented moral condition of some progressives.  It is pointed out than Hollywood mavens such as Madonna, Sandra Bullock and the Pitt/Jolie have adopted children of similar nationality/race ... and are correctly praised by MSM ... but when ACB does it it criticized.

Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?

You provide enough condemnation to cover all the rest of us.

Peace, JOHN
Apparently you are quite tolerant of slanderous posts of fellow progressives ... but when hypocrisy of progressives is brought to light, your defensive partisan nature kicks in.

Your response is even more concerning and confusing because I was condemning the hypocrisy of progressives who are criticizing ACB for her adoption of her Haitian children. It seems you also adopted children of a different racial background ... which is commendable.

Why attack me with a snark filled response ... I’m not the subject here ... the Subject is the hypocrisy of some progressives in the manner they attack ACB for adopting children of a different race while praising and extolling progressives who do the same.

Feel free (moderator permitting😏) to begin a thread personally attacking anyone you like😎.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: John_Hannah on September 28, 2020, 05:59:36 PM

Apparently you are quite tolerant of slanderous posts of fellow progressives ... but when hypocrisy of progressives is brought to light, your defensive partisan nature kicks in.


You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Charles Austin on September 28, 2020, 06:13:50 PM
I am progressive and I am quite willing to praise the nominee for her adoptions, her active faith and her family. I hereby do so.
However, it is her attitude towards law and the Constitution that should be considered when assessing her fitness for the high court.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 28, 2020, 06:34:09 PM
You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN
Since no names were noted in my posts, it’s a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 28, 2020, 06:43:09 PM
You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN
Since no names were noted in my posts, it’s a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?

Probably because your response followed immediately after your quotation of John's post.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: John_Hannah on September 28, 2020, 07:02:36 PM
You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN
Since no names were noted in my posts, it’s a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?



Probably because your response followed immediately after your quotation of John's post.

Yes.   ;D
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 28, 2020, 07:11:51 PM
You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN
Since no names were noted in my posts, it’s a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?
You quoted him and used second person pronouns about him adopting children. You were obviously speaking directly to John. He responded, and then you post expressing confusion as to why he is responding as though you were talking to him. Your confusion might be something beyond the remedy of this forum to clear up. 
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: FrPeters on September 28, 2020, 07:19:42 PM
How fast is too fast?  A list of more recent justices and how long it was between nomination and confirmation:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993): 42 days
Sandra Day O'Connor (1981): 33 days
John Paul Stevens (1975): 19 days
Lewis Powell (1971): 45 days
Harry Blackmun (1970): 27 days
Warren Burger (1969): 17 days

Of the 163 nominations in U.S. history to the highest court in the nation, more than half were formally nominated and confirmed within 45 days. Some of the justices were even nominated and confirmed on the same day.  Every one of the 29 times there has been a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, the president has nominated a person to fill the vacancy (though not all were confirmed).  So either our current senate is not as smart as, cannot obtain or process information on the candidates as quickly, or, perhaps, this process has ceased to be about judicial qualifications and has become solely a political vote.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 28, 2020, 08:04:03 PM
To demonstrate that confirming Supreme Court Justices was not always a political football:

Here are the vote totals for the 6 people listed by Pastor Peters.

Ginsburg.........96-3
O'Connor.........99-0
Stevens..........98-0
Powell.............89-1
Blackmun........94-0
Burger.............74-3

Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 28, 2020, 09:20:09 PM
You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN
Since no names were noted in my posts, it’s a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?
You quoted him and used second person pronouns about him adopting children. You were obviously speaking directly to John. He responded, and then you post expressing confusion as to why he is responding as though you were talking to him. Your confusion might be something beyond the remedy of this forum to clear up. 
Since moderation is judging my response, my response was a result of Rev Hannah’s response “ You provide enough condemnation to cover all the rest of us.”


Rev Speckhard ... I quoted who using second person pronouns?   To my knowledge, quoting a person requires one to use the exact words the person quoted used.  Please expand on your comment.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 28, 2020, 09:59:12 PM
  So either our current senate is not as smart as, cannot obtain or process information on the candidates as quickly, or, perhaps, this process has ceased to be about judicial qualifications and has become solely a political vote.

All of the above.  :o
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 28, 2020, 10:25:25 PM
The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics (https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics)
Tragically Rev Hughes was bullied off the forum .. but his body of posts remains.

The criticism of ACB’s adoption of Haitian children simply reveals the demented moral condition of some progressives.  It is pointed out than Hollywood mavens such as Madonna, Sandra Bullock and the Pitt/Jolie have adopted children of similar nationality/race ... and are correctly praised by MSM ... but when ACB does it it criticized.

Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?

You provide enough condemnation to cover all the rest of us.

Peace, JOHN
Apparently you are quite tolerant of slanderous posts of fellow progressives ... but when hypocrisy of progressives is brought to light, your defensive partisan nature kicks in.

Your response is even more concerning and confusing because I was condemning the hypocrisy of progressives who are criticizing ACB for her adoption of her Haitian children. It seems you also adopted children of a different racial background ... which is commendable.

Why attack me with a snark filled response ... I’m not the subject here ... the Subject is the hypocrisy of some progressives in the manner they attack ACB for adopting children of a different race while praising and extolling progressives who do the same.

Feel free (moderator permitting😏) to begin a thread personally attacking anyone you like😎.
James, you quoted, that is, used the quote feature, to quote John Hannah's post, and responded to his host addressing him directly with the second person pronouns highlighted above. When he responded, you then asked why John Hannah was responding to you as though you were talking to him when no names were in your post. It is a tedious vexation to the spirit to engage in dialog at this level.   
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: James J Eivan on September 29, 2020, 12:00:00 AM
You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN
Since no names were noted in my posts, it’s a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?

Probably because your response followed immediately after your quotation of John's post.
Again missing the point ... In the initial post the question was asked ...” Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?”.

Rev Hannah responded “ You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics.”

Giving Rev Hannah credit for his critique of the judge’s critics, I simply acknowledging that my post was not directed to him, questioning why he felt the comment was directed at since no names were mentioned ... and Because he had indeed been critical of the judges critics ... and therefore already had been critical in the manner suggested in by “ Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?”

In short, I’m still confused about why Rev Hannah thought I missed his critique of the judge’s critics ... or to put it another way ... since he had already been critical in the manner I suggested, why did he feel the above question was directed at him ... it obviously was not.


Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 29, 2020, 01:58:08 PM
An archbishop's view of the matter.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/09/when-the-dogma-lives-loudly

Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Weedon on September 29, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Re the Archbishop’s words: and, of course, the things that upset folks about ACB are not Catholic specifics but the bedrocks of what Lewis once called “mere Christianity.”
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: FrPeters on September 29, 2020, 02:47:55 PM
Is there anything more dangerous than a pastor or people who believe the Scriptures, confess from the heart the creed, pray earnestly, and do so without apology or embarrassment?  Christianity has suffered from people who claim to be devout but who parse the Word of God and the creeds as if these were words without meaning, fact, or truth.  Sen. Feinstein was echoing not only the wariness of the world toward such faith but also the hesitation even within the churches to be bound by the faith of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone.
Title: Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
Post by: Jim Butler on October 03, 2020, 02:03:04 PM
A positive treatment of ACB and an interesting take on feminism and the issue of abortion:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/27/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-nominee-feminist-icon-422059